doctorquant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 20,133
In starting this thread I'm prompted by this econ blog post dealing with the NYT's feature on GMO crops. The upshot of the Times' piece is that GMOs are leading to neither increased yields nor reduced pesticide use and therefore are not living up to their promise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html
Here's the thing, though. The Times may have been way the heck off in its reporting (perhaps even deliberately so given its cherry-picking of which non-GMO entity to compare the U.S. to):
The tiresome discussion of initial GMO expectations
I'm beginning to think that maybe in our era of heightened "scienceyness" (with overlaps of policy controversies) that science journalists should stick to, say, breakthroughs in theoretical physics and whether the latest hiccup in the static proves that we're not alone in the universe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html
Here's the thing, though. The Times may have been way the heck off in its reporting (perhaps even deliberately so given its cherry-picking of which non-GMO entity to compare the U.S. to):
The tiresome discussion of initial GMO expectations
I'm beginning to think that maybe in our era of heightened "scienceyness" (with overlaps of policy controversies) that science journalists should stick to, say, breakthroughs in theoretical physics and whether the latest hiccup in the static proves that we're not alone in the universe.
